RE SOHAN SHYAM

CACV 73/2026, [2026] HKCA 624

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 73 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 227 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 20 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 388)  (“the Leave Decision”)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 11 December 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 25 June 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim. 

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 16 March 2026.  By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 January 2026 (“the Directions”), which were received by the applicant in person on the same day, he was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 2 March 2026, failing which, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  However, he did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge any skeleton argument by the stipulated time, he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 3 March 2026.

4.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: at [10] - [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 January 2026 the applicant merely stated:

“I want to apply notice of appeal against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with my ORDER.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.  Given his failure to advance any proper ground of appeal against the Leave Decision, his appeal is a non-starter and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.